Binamira v.

Garrucho
G.R. No. 92008 July 30, 1990 Cruz, J.
Facts:

Ramon P. Binamira seeks reinstatement to the office of General Manager of the Philippine
Tourism Authority from which he claims to have been removed without just cause in violation of his
security of tenure.

Binamira claims that since assuming office, he had discharged the duties of PTA General
Manager and Vice-Chairman of its Board of Directors and had been acknowledged as such by various
government offices, including the Office of the President.

He complains, though, that on January 2, 1990, his resignation was demanded by respondent
Garrucho as the new Secretary of Tourism. Binamiras demurrer led to an unpleasant exchange that led
to his filing of a complaint against the Secretary with the Commission on Human Rights.

Section 23-A of P.D. 564, which created the Philippine Tourism Authority, provides as follows:

SECTION 23-A. General Manager-Appointment and Tenure. The General Manager shall be appointed
by the President of the Philippines and shall serve for a term of six (6) years unless sooner removed for
cause; Provided, That upon the expiration of his term, he shall serve as such until his successor shall
have been appointed and qualified. (As amended by P.D. 1400)

Issue:

whether Binamira was appointed as General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority or
merely designated

Held:

Petitioner was not appointed by the President of the Philippines but only designated by the
Minister of Tourism. There is a clear distinction between appointment and designation that the
petitioner has failed to consider. Appointment may be defined as the selection, by the authority vested
with the power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office. When completed,
usually with its confirmation, the appointment results in security of tenure for the person chosen unless
he is replaceable at pleasure because of the nature of his office. Designation, on the other hand,
connotes merely the imposition by law of additional duties on an incumbent official, as where, in the
case before us, the Secretary of Tourism is designated Chairman of the Board of Directors of the
Philippine Tourism Authority, or where, under the Constitution, three Justices of the Supreme Court are
designated by the Chief Justice to sit in the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or the House of
Representatives. It is said that appointment is essentially executive while designation is legislative in
nature.

Designation may also be loosely defined as an appointment because it likewise involves the naming of a
particular person to a specified public office. That is the common understanding of the term. However,
where the person is merely designated and not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold the office
only in a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will by the appointing authority. In this sense, the
designation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment, which does not confer security of
tenure on the person named.
 Even if so understood, that is, as an appointment, the designation of the petitioner cannot
sustain his claim that he has been illegally removed. The reason is that the decree clearly provides that
the appointment of the General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority shall be made by the
President of the Philippines, not by any other officer. Appointment involves the exercise of discretion,
which because of its nature cannot be delegated. Legally speaking, it was not possible for Minister
Gonzales to assume the exercise of that discretion as an alter ego of the President. The appointment (or
designation) of the petitioner was not a merely mechanical or ministerial act that could be validly
performed by a subordinate even if he happened as in this case to be a member of the Cabinet.